Back to Top

Author Archives: diane

About diane

Diane Gaston is the RITA award-winning author of Historical Romance for Harlequin Historical and Mills and Boon, with books that feature the darker side of the Regency. Formerly a mental health social worker, she is happiest now when deep in the psyches of soldiers, rakes and women who don’t always act like ladies.

Regency Wedding Redux

Updated on by

Today the dh and I are celebrating our wedding anniversary and we want to take a little break to do something fun. So I’m recycling a 2008 blog I did on Regency Weddings.

We were married a gazillion years ago, before a bride would even DREAM of a wearing a  strapless gown. Before I married, I’d never read Georgette Heyer or Regency Romances and it had been a few years since I’d read Jane Austen.

But take a look at my wedding dress.

It’s a little hard to tell here, but it has an empire waist, leg o’mutton sleeves, and ribbon trim. It’s a Regency Dress!

I’d never heard of the Regency, but somehow I picked a Regency dress.

Like me, Regency brides did wear white, but they didn’t have to. In the Regency, white gowns were popular for many occasions. Other colors like pale pink and blue were also worn at weddings. The older the bride, the darker the color. Wedding dresses were worn after the wedding, too. By the time Queen Victoria became a bride and wore white, the white wedding dress was well on its way to becoming a tradition.

Princess Charlotte, who wed Prince Leopold in 1816, wore a dress of silver lamé, embroidered in silver. 

Sites that tell more about Regency Weddings:

Jessamyn’s Regency Costume Companion

Regency Weddings

Quick facts about Regency Weddings:

1. Weddings could take place after reading of the Banns, a license, or a special license. Banns must be read for three consecutive Sundays in the parishes of both the prospective bride and groom. A license, purchased from the bishop of the diocese, did away with the banns but the couple still had to be married in the parish church. A special license, purchased from the Archbishop of Canterbury, allowed the couple to be married in a location other than a church and without banns. Licenses were never blank; different names could not be substituted.

2. Scottish weddings went by different rules. In Scotland couples could be married by declaring themselves married in front of witnesses, by making a promise to marry followed by intercourse, or by living together and calling themselves married.

3. Weddings could not be performed by proxy. Both the bride and groom had to be present.

4. Ship captains could not perform marriages. Couples could be married aboard ship, but only by clergy. (How many times have you read that plot?)

5. Brides had wedding rings; grooms did not. The bride could give the groom a ring as a wedding gift, but it was not part of the ceremony and didn’t symbolize he was married.

Do you want a Regency Wedding? There are many sites on the internet offering custom made Regency wedding dresses:

Jane Austen Centre Giftshop
Fashions in Time

Or if you are handy, you could make your Regency gown:

Do you have any questions about Regency weddings?

Did anyone else have a Regency wedding dress?

A Reputation for Notoriety is now available as an ebook, if you are like me and prefer ebooks.

 

Posted in Risky Regencies | 6 Replies

Memorial Day Homage

Updated on by

Today is Memorial Day in the USA, a day of remembrance that began as Decoration Day, a day freemen (freed slaves) decorated the graves of Union soldiers. The holiday eventually became a day to include remembrance of all who have died in defense of our country.

Most of us do not know first hand what soldiers face when they are sent into combat. We suppose their valor, their fear, their willingness to face enemy fire. We imagine it and recreate it in books (Most of my heroes are soldiers or former soldiers) and movies.

One of my favorite war movies is one released in 1964, Zulu. Zulu tells the true story of the Battle of Rorke’s Drift on January 22, 1879.

The British had invaded the Zulu lands in South Africa under the direction of the British Governor General, but without the sanction of the Government, as part of an attempt to unify the area under British rule. On January 22, at Isandhlwana, a British force of 1700 men was attacked by the Zulu and defeated, leaving only 400 survivors. One Zulu reserve corps of 3,000 missed the battle, but wanted to partake in the glory of victory. They attacked a British store depot and hospital at Rorke’s Drift.

There was only a tiny British garrison of 140 men at Rorke’s Drift. Many of them were sick or wounded. They were commanded by Lieutenant John Chard of the Royal Engineers, who outranked the one infantry officer present, Lieutenant Gonville Bromhead (played n the movie by a very young Michael Caine), whose company had been assigned to guard the station.

The 140 men at the station fought for 12 hours to repel repeated attacks by the 3,000 Zulu warriors. Queen Victoria’s government rewarded their heroic defense by awarding 11 Victoria Crosses and 5 Distinguished Conduct Medals.

What I loved about this movie was its depiction of the valor and dignity of both the British soldiers and the Zulu warriors. I loved that bravery and sacrifice was celebrated.

It turns out that my favorite two scenes in the movie didn’t really happen, but they still depict soldiers at their best.  Here is a YouTube video of those two scenes.

And here is to the valor of soldiers. We remember them today.

Come visit the Pink Heart Society today for my blog on Male on Monday. I’m giving away a signed copy of A Reputation for Notoriety.

My winner for last week’s giveaway of A Reputation for Notoriety is….bn100. Congratulations, bn100. Email me at diane@dianegaston.com with your mailing address.

 

Posted in TV and Film | 1 Reply

It’s Here (Almost) A Reputation For Notoriety

Updated on by

I have had such a busy couple of weeks with a family reunion in California and my daughter’s college graduation (Yay!) that release day of A Reputation for Notoriety has sneaked up on me. It is tomorrow!

In honor of release day, I’m giving away one signed copy of A Reputation for Notoriety to one lucky commenter chosen at random.

The back cover blurb of A Reputation for Notoriety

Raising the stakes…

As the unacknowledged son of the lecherous Lord Westleigh, John “Rhys” Rhysdale was forced to earn a crust gambling on the streets. Now he owns the most thrilling new gaming establishment in London.

Witnessing polite society’s debauchery and excess every night, Rhys prefers to live on its fringes, but a mysterious masked lady tempts him into the throng.

Lady Celia Gale, known only as Madame Fortune, matches Rhys card for card and kiss for stolen kiss. But the stakes are raised when Rhys discovers she’s from the very world he despises…

The Masquerade Club.
Identities concealed, desires revealed…

The first review!

4 Stars! “…It’s passionate, intense and seductive. The characters are lively with pulsating sexual tension and there are enough secrets, scandals and complications to make a lady swoon with glee!” — Maria Ferrer, RT BOOKReviews (read the whole review)

I wanted to write a gaming hell story and a story about a bastard son. Thus A Reputation for Notoriety was born. The question for me was what kind of gaming house did I want? I certainly did not want my hero to run a disreputable gaming house and I wanted one that society ladies could attend. The only way I could think of that a lady could attend would be in a mask, but I’d already used that idea in The Wagering Widow. I couldn’t repeat that idea.

Or could I? I decided to use the same gaming house that appeared in The Wagering Widow and to use the hero’s memory of the wagering widow as the idea for his house. I suppose this “proves” that all my Regency people really do live in the same “world.”

I like to think of it that way. I like to think that they all really existed and lived the lives I imagined for them. I like to think that they might pass each other on a Mayfair street or choose the same books from Hachards. While characters in one book are enmeshed in conflict, I like to think that others are living their happily-ever-after.

The latest of my Regency people will begin their story tomorrow. Look for A Reputation for Notoriety on bookstore shelves tomorrow or for sale from online vendors. The ebook version will appear June 1.

Do you like to imagine the people in books are real? What has been keeping you busy these days? Comment for a chance to win a signed copy of A Reputation for Notoriety.

 

Posted in Giveaways, Reading, Regency, Risky Book Talk | 23 Replies

Sick of the Regency?

Updated on by

Edmund_Blair_Leighton_-_AdieuLast week on my Diane’s Blog, I mentioned the discussion on Dear Author titled  We Should Let The Historical Genre Die.

At the end of the blog Jane says:

I’m not going to launch a historical romance campaign.  I think I’m actively looking for the historical romance genre to die.  For Regency dukes to molder into dust.  For dashing  earls to be crushed.  Only then can the genre reinvent itself.  I don’t want to save the historical romance genre. I want it to die and from the ashes, maybe then, a new and fresh historical voices will arise unconstrained by both reader, editor and agent expectations.

Of the 122 comments, several remarked about being tired of Regency and blaming the “demise” of the Historical Romance on the fact that the vast majority are Regency. One commenter said:

I have tried writing Regency but, as you pointed out, there are no original plots and the readership for this period is so knowledgeable I wouldn’t dare get the slightest flick of a fan out of place!

Edmund_Blair_Leighton_-_CourtshipNo original plots? (and I try so hard….)

Other commenters complained about what we’ve discussed here many times, the “wallpaper” historical, one that puts the characters in costume but has them acting in 21st century ways. Can’t disagree with that personally, although I know some readers prefer this sort of Regency.

The discussion apparently began with a blog on All About Romance, asking Where Have All The Historical Romances Gone? with some of the same points made, especially in the comments.

Evangaline Holland joined the debate in her blog post, The Trouble With Historical Romance. In the comments she remarked that other romance genres ebb and flow with changing tastes and audiences, but she cited this parenthetical example:

(look at how quickly Harlequin’s contemporary romance lines shift and morph based on audience response, whereas Harlequin Historical–once in danger of being axed completely–shifts at a comparatively glacial pace).

I must remark that saying this about Harlequin Historical is a misconception. HH has never given up Westerns, even when other publishers did, and they’ve experimented with lots of different time periods and settings: Jeannie Linn’s Chinese historicals, Ancient Rome, Vikings, Irish Medevials, Amanda’s Elizabethans and more.

Suffice to say that I found all these discussions about historical romance very interesting. The various opinions about Regency Historical Romance was often daunting and discouraging–I also thought they were at least partially true.

380px-Vincent_van_Gogh_-_Weeping_Woman_(F1069)That little anxious mini-me who lives inside my brain was wailing, “What’s the use!” Her chin was on the floor and she was halfway to believing that nobody liked Regencies anymore.

Until my dh and I went to Old Town Coffee Tea & Spice in Alexandria with a friend. We were there a long time, picking out lots of loose tea, so we were getting pretty chummy with the salesclerk, a woman in her 50s, I’d guess.

My dh asked her, “Do you read romance novels?” (I was as surprised as she was at the question. My dh is not usually my publicist!)

She responded, “Yes.” She paused for a few seconds. “But I only read Regencies.”

Next time we go, I’m bringing her a book!

So what do you think?
Do you think the Historical Romance genre should die so it can be resurrected into something better?
Do you think Regency plots are over done? If so, which ones?
Do you think the problem with Historicals is there is not enough diversity of time periods? If so, what time periods and settings would you like to see more of?

Posted in Reading, Regency, Writing | 31 Replies